[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: the ethics of the HTML content meta tag
At 03:06 PM 12/11/02 -0600, Steven Belknap wrote:
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 02:05 PM, Jay F Kominek wrote:
> I intentionally omitted any reference to Loglan when I wrote the text,
> and I continue to stand by that omission.
The lojban.org web site was not the place to unilaterally have made
whatever point you were making. This issue was discussed on the
listserv a number of years ago, and as a result of this discussion
links to loglan.org were added. If you disagreed with the mention of
Loglan on the web site and with the links to loglan.org, the proper
approach would have been to discuss your concerns either privately with
lojbab and robin, or to bring the issue to the listserv.
Jay and Robin took the proper approach. When I turned the web page over to
him as webmaster , I gave him broad editorial discretion to modify the
site. He has done so (and though he delegated it to Jay, he has taken the
responsibility). Robin's done the job to my extreme satisfaction, and for
that matter, to the extreme satisfaction of the members, per the motion
passed at the last annual meeting:
* MOVED: To Commend Robin Powell for exceptional efforts in converting
the LLG site, and for exceeding expectations on presentation to public - PASSED
I find it hard in the face of such commendation, to criticize either Jay or
Robin for the work that they did.
We likewise have had no complaints from TLI, and in fact have had increased
cooperation with them since the site was turned over to Robin, and now
Robin and Bob McIvor plan to work out a mutually agreeable set of
references to each language on their respective home pages. I see no
problem, and every reason to be satisfied.
I realize that perhaps
you (and others) don't really care about the history of Loglan
But I do care.
and believe that my concerns about this issue are foolish.
No, I believe that your words are counterproductive, in that, having gone
beyond stating your concern, you are pushing the issue to the point where
any of us that wish to respect the historical connection to Loglan will be
perceived by others as being extremists, and the non-productive focus on
the matter is unhelpful in encouraging greater cooperation between TLI and LLG.
I certainly agree that that Loglan is dead,
It isn't dead. TLI Loglan is moribund. The Loglan project is alive and well.
and I gave up on TLI Loglan long ago.
But then, what's the use of trying to explain. Nao, buo no, levi vizgoi
ga duodja lopo lentaa la Loglan.
It appears that you have not given up on TLI Loglan.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org